Monday, March 12, 2012

The Closing of the Western Mind and Mouth

“Our
churches have become extremely worldly. It is supposed to be that the
churches influence the nation, but now the nation is influencing the
church.”

Churches
“very rarely talk about sin and refuse ever to say that homosexual
behaviour is a sin.” Only a minority of people in the churches in Britain,
“speak out the word of God. And they get a lot of aggression for it. The
church is doing a disservice to homosexuals by denying sinners their
liberty in the lord Jesus Christ. They are blind guides leading others
into a ditch of destruction.”

“The
established churches don’t accept the way I’ve spoken today, which is a
biblical way. The word of God is being marginalised, as is the medical
truth of homosexuality.”

“Statistics
for self-harm, self-hatred, psychological illness are horrendous and are
getting more and more momentum as this acceptance grows,” she said.
Homosexual behaviour is “incredibly bad for the individual, it is
destructive to the person and to our nation.”

“There
is no way being gay-affirmative is helpful to individuals or to our
nation,” she said. She admitted that in the UK, it is becoming “very close
to illegal to say this.”

How could Pilkington get away with saying such inflammatory things?
Well, she didn’t:

The
British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy found her guilty of
professional misconduct and ordered her to undergo re-training and
“professional development.” These are to be completed in six to 12 months,
or her membership will be revoked and she will be “struck off.”

The
BACP ruled that Pilkington’s approach was “reckless,” “dogmatic,”
“disrespectful” and “unprofessional.” She was judged to have let her
“personal preconceived views about gay lifestyle and sexual orientation …
affect her professional relationship in a way that was prejudicial.”

This transpired because,

Lesley Pilkington was the object of a sting operation by undercover journalist
Patrick Strudwick, who approached her to ask her for help with his
sexuality. He had told Pilkington that he wanted to leave the homosexual
lifestyle and she informed him that she only worked within a Christian
counseling framework.

Strudwick,
who went to two counseling sessions with Pilkington and published the
transcript of the meetings in The Independent newspaper, was awarded
journalist of the year by the homosexualist organization Stonewall for the
sting. After the sessions, he lodged a complaint to the British
Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy alleging that Pilkington had
failed to respect the “fixed nature” of his homosexuality.

Pilkington had explained,

“He
told me he was looking for a treatment for being gay. He said he was
depressed and unhappy and would I give him some therapy. I told him I only
work using a Christian biblical framework and he said that was exactly
what he wanted.”

Had Strudwick only
complained that he was depressed, Pilkington would have been held in contempt
by her profession had she sent him away telling him to “learn to live with it!”
Why the double standard? Certainly, the BACP would never stoop to political
correctness by compromising truth and professionalism. Certainly, the BACP
wouldn’t compromise the welfare of the public that they serve!

Commenting on the case, Conservative MEP Roger Helmer said,

“Why
is it OK for a surgeon to perform a sex-change operation, but not OK for a
psychiatrist to try to ‘turn’ a consenting homosexual? If, for whatever
reasons – moral, religious, personal – a homosexual man wants to have help
to cure this, he should be allowed to seek treatment. I’m not being
critical about homosexuality at all, but if we have people who want to
change, why should they be prevented from that happening?”

Good question, but who cares about truth and logical
consistency if the cost is criticism!

During
her discussions with the BACP she asked for a clear answer on their policy
on clients seeking help to overcome same-sex attraction, but received no
answer. But a document released by the UK Council for Psychotherapy,
Ethical Principles and Code of Professional Conduct, says that even when a
client specifically asks for help to eliminate homosexual tendencies,
psychotherapists are obliged to refuse. The guidelines say that even in a
case of a father with a family, who loves and wants to stay with his wife
and children and wants to be rid of same-sex feelings, the counsellor is
obliged to refuse to “pathologise” them and instead must “affirm” him in
being a homosexual.

“Agreeing
to the client’s request for therapy for the reduction of same sex
attraction is not in a client’s best interests,” the guidance says.
Therapists who feel they do not have “sufficient competence” to adhere to
this policy are obliged to refer clients to therapists who will only help
them to accept homosexual inclinations.

In such a case, the BACP is convinced that the client doesn’t
know what he is talking about. The BACP clearly knows what’s best for him, even
if he is married and has children! After all, what’s the matter with having a
dad or a husband if he wants a little extra sex on the side!

Pilkington insinuates the use of Nazi-like tactics:

“It is
extraordinary to me. People have lost the ability to genuinely look at
what’s best for people. Political correctness and gay activists have
generated a fear. People say, ‘I’m going to agree with this or I’m going
to have a lot of aggression towards me’.”

It is even more extraordinary that the Western institutions that
are supposed to safe-guard against aggression and coercion have capitulated!